Opinion
J-A25026-15 No. 187 EDA 2015
09-23-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. ANTHONY G. ALEXANDER Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 31, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005442-2013
BEFORE: DONOHUE, J., MUNDY, J., and FITZGERALD, J. MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Anthony G. Alexander, appeals nunc pro tunc from the January 31, 2014 judgment of sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, imposed following a bench trial wherein he was convicted of murder in the first degree, violation of a protective order, possession of an instrument of a crime, recklessly endangering another person, and simple assault. After careful review, we affirm.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(a), 4955, 907, 2705, and 2701(a), respectively.
The trial court summarized the factual history of this case as follows.
At trial, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of Philadelphia Police Detective Nathan Williams, Philadelphia Police Officers Raymond
Andrejczak, Lamont Robinson, Jacqueline Davis, Johnny Hightower, and Floyd Jackson, Associate Medical Examiner Dr. Aaron Rosen, Jerome P. Wilkins, Colleen Fitzpatrick, and Andrea Johnson. [Appellant] testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of Marlon Alexander and Sharon Rafael. Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, the evidence established the following.
On February 26, 2013, at approximately 8[:00] in the morning, [Appellant] drove to the 600 block of Yewdall Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [Appellant] exited his vehicle carrying a shotgun and approached Jennifer Fitzpatrick, who was the mother of his 4[-]year[-]old son. Fitzpatrick had previously obtained a protection from abuse order against [Appellant]. When Fitzpatrick saw [Appellant] approach her carrying a shotgun, she immediately fled down Yewdall Street screaming, "Help, help!" Fitzpatrick ran up to a car that was parked on the side of the street and begged for help. When the person inside the car saw [Appellant] approaching with a shotgun, he immediately drove off. [Appellant] caught up to Fitzpatrick and the two began to struggle. Fitzpatrick eventually broke free from [Appellant] and continued to run down Yewdall Street. [Appellant] chased Fitzpatrick down the street and fired the shotgun twice in her direction. [Appellant] eventually caught up to Fitzpatrick again and grabbed her by the arm.
[Appellant] pulled Fitzpatrick by her arm to her house on the 500 block of Yewdall Street with his shotgun still in hand. When Fitzpatrick and [Appellant] arrived at her house, Fitzpatrick walked up onto her front porch. Fitzpatrick's mother, Colleen Fitzpatrick, was inside the house and heard a loud noise from the outside, prompting her to ask her husband, Delmar Adams to investigate. When Adams looked outside a window, he saw [Appellant] pointing a shotgun at Fitzpatrick. Adams and Colleen immediately ran downstairs to the front door, followed by Fitzpatrick's daughter, Ciara
Dobbs. When Adams opened the front door, [Appellant] immediately turned the shotgun on him. After Adams retreated back into the house and shut the door, [Appellant] reloaded the shotgun. [Appellant] then ordered Fitzpatrick to get into her van, which was parked on the street. Fitzpatrick walked down to her van and opened the door. [Appellant] was face to face with Fitzpatrick by her van, pointing the shotgun at her chest, when Fitzpatrick's mother yelled "Jenny!" from the house. When Fitzpatrick attempted to turn around to look at her mother, [Appellant] shot her in the chest. Immediately after shooting Fitzpatrick, [Appellant] got into his car and drove away. Fitzpatrick died instantaneously as a result of the shotgun blast.Trial Court Opinion, 2/24/15, at 1-3 (citations and footnote omitted).
Philadelphia police officers in marked police vehicles chased [Appellant] as he fled the scene. [Appellant] was ultimately apprehended in an auto mechanic shop. Upon his arrest, [Appellant] stated "What would you do, she was on welfare, I paid for my child, I just was tired of her," and "Why didn't you just shoot me, my life is over."
Appellant waived his right to a jury trial, and on January 21, 2014 proceeded to a bench trial. On January 31, 2014, at the conclusion of the three-day trial, the trial court found Appellant guilty of the aforementioned offenses. On the same day, the trial court imposed a sentence of life without parole on the first-degree murder charge, and no further penalty for the remaining counts. Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion, nor a direct appeal.
On June 16, 2014, Appellant filed a timely petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). Therein, Appellant averred he had requested trial counsel file a notice of appeal, and that trial counsel had failed to do so. Appellant's PCRA petition, 6/16/14, at ¶¶ 2-3. On December 19, 2014, the PCRA granted Appellant's petition and reinstated his direct appeal rights. On December 31, 2014, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal nunc pro tunc.
Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue for our review.
A. Whether the verdict is insufficient as a matter of law to support a finding of guilt on the first degree murder charge where the evidence indicated that the shooting was an accidental killing without criminal intent or in the alternative the shooting was reckless but was without malice in order to form the intent for first degree murder?Appellant's Brief at 5.
We begin by noting our well-settled standard of review. "In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider whether the evidence presented at trial, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, support the jury's verdict beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Patterson , 91 A.3d 55, 66 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted), cert. denied, Patterson v . Pennsylvania , 135 S. Ct. 1400 (2015). "The Commonwealth can meet its burden by wholly circumstantial evidence and any doubt about the defendant's guilt is to be resolved by the fact finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact can be drawn from the combined circumstances." Commonwealth v. Watley , 81 A.3d 108, 113 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), appeal denied, 95 A.3d 277 (Pa. 2014). As an appellate court, we must review "the entire record ... and all evidence actually received[.]" Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "[T]he trier of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence." Commonwealth v. Orie , 88 A.3d 983, 1014 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 99 A.3d 925 (Pa. 2014). "Because evidentiary sufficiency is a question of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary." Commonwealth v. Diamond , 83 A.3d 119, 126 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted), cert. denied, Diamond v . Pennsylvania , 135 S. Ct. 145 (2014).
Instantly, Appellant was convicted of murder of the first degree, which is codified as follows.
§ 2502. Murder
(a) Murder of the first degree.--A criminal homicide constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed by an intentional killing.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502.
...
(d) Definitions.--As used in this section the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:
...
"Intentional killing." Killing by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing.
Furthermore, our Supreme Court has consistently stated when proving the sufficiency of the evidence for first-degree murder, the Commonwealth's burden is as follows.
In order to sustain a conviction for first-degree murder, the Commonwealth must prove that: (1) a human being was unlawfully killed; (2) the defendant was responsible for the killing; and (3) the defendant acted with malice and a specific intent to kill. Specific intent and malice may be established through circumstantial evidence, such as the use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the victim's body.Commonwealth v. Arrington , 86 A.3d 831, 840 (Pa. 2014) (internal citation omitted), cert. denied, Arrington v . Pennsylvania , 135 S. Ct. 479 (2014).
Instantly, Appellant argues the evidence was insufficient "where there was no evidence that he had a specific premeditated intent to kill and the evidence supports that the firearm accidently discharged and killed the decedent." Appellant's Brief at 9. Appellant relies on his own testimony at trial that the "shot gun discharged accidentally while he was having a discussion with [Fitzpatrick] in or near her van." Id. at 10. He further argues that Detective Williams' testimony that Appellant was "upset and crying when he learned Ms. Fitzpatrick had died[,]" bolsters his assertion. Id. Upon careful review, we disagree.
The trial court has fully and adequately set forth the evidence in support of its conclusion that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence of Appellant's intent to kill in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 2/24/15, at 3-7. Specifically, we note that several eye-witnesses testified that Appellant repeatedly pointed the shotgun at Fitzpatrick, fired twice, reloaded and then shot her in the heart from only feet away. Pennsylvania courts have consistently held that such evidence is sufficient to establish the specific intent to kill for a first-degree murder conviction. See Commonwealth v. Mattison , 82 A.3d 386, 392 (Pa. 2013) (concluding sufficient evidence of specific intent to kill existed where, "eye witness testimony demonstrate[d] that after [the defendant] ... fatally shot the victim in the head at close range while the victim was lying defenseless on the ground[]"), cert. denied, Mattison v . Pennsylvania , 135 S. Ct. 221 (2014); Commonwealth v. Chine , 40 A.3d 1239, 1242 (Pa. Super. 2012) (concluding the defendant "surely intended the shooting to have fatal results as he fired three shots at the victim's head, a vital part of the body[]"), appeal denied, 63 A.3d 773 (Pa. 2013). Accordingly, for purposes of our review, we adopt the reasoning of the Honorable Glenn B. Bronson as our own.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to enable the trial court to find Appellant had the specific intent to kill. Accordingly, we adopt the trial court's February 24, 2015 opinion as our own, and Appellant's January 31, 2014 judgment of sentence is affirmed.
The parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court's February 24, 2015 opinion to this memorandum in the event of further proceedings.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/23/2015
Image materials not available for display.